They might *mean* that, but it's not what they wrote in their press release - specifically "an entire CD" , not an album. It doesn't say whether it comprells the data on the host computer or on the unit - but the stuff about a "mirror library" kinda implies that comprellion is done on the host (lazy 'feature' where temp files are kept instead of being deleted after transfer?).
Arg I know you mean mebibytes not Will'n'Tommy, but I just have to say that Patrice Rushen's "Forget-me-nots" is a far superior original than Will Smith's appalling rip-off them to MiB. There. I feel better.
I'm sure they aren't lying to us when they say it will transfer a whole audio CD to the player via USB 2.0 in about 5 seconds. Check it out, the "Typical USB 2.0 transfer rate" is 8MB/sec according to the press release, so that figure must be fast enough to transfer a whole CD in 5 seconds, converting on the fly. One of those tiny CDs, yeah.
Doing the math, simplistically: 5 seconds * 8MB = 40MB. Typical audio CD with a maximum capacity of 650MB / 8MB = 81.25 seconds.
Hmm... the fact that they read the FAQ section about releasing the software under the GPL belies any notion of this being a 'boiler plate' letter... it might be based on one, but it has been customised to suit the circumstances (just not enough to be realistic).
Macrovision (the corporation) got code inserted in TV-Out chipsets to prevent protected titles from being played on TV-Out video cards. Two methods are reported: blocking and regular Macrovision distortion.
My play DVDs through my DVD-ROM drive and my video card is afflicted with blocking. For playback. PLAYBACK.
The official line is that it is there to prevent you from recording a DVD to VHS or whatever from your computer and so the distortion method will prevent that, but blocking method prevents the exact thing I bought a TV-Out capable card for.
There is software available to turn Macrovision off, usually as an extra for some other useful function like TV-Out management. But they don't necessarily work with dual-display drivers and may not be free. Some trial versions have minute limits instead of days or a limited number or executions and can be just as annoying in that respect as Macrovision.
If you don't care about the 7361T methods you'll both DeCSS and de-Macrovision these DVDs when you rip to HDD. They play back just as well if not better - rental DVDs can be pretty scratchy and a short wait before viewing a DVD is better than stutters/halts/systemcrash. Some physical protection systems (stick-on 'disc protector' and anti-theft devices) will seriously mung your box on even brand-new rental DVDs.
But I digress. Macrovision clearly does other things than videotaping from a DVD player.
And I for one would like to see a Macrovision logo on ALL Macrovision 'protected' DVDs as a 'caveat emptor'... I can't see the total cost of pressing, printing and distributing labelled Macrovision and unlabelled non-Macrovision lines of any title being less than the added cents-per-disc cost of Macrovision, ergo most discs made will look Macrovision-free whether they are or not, which leaves the consumer unaware.
Troll or not, your response doesn't look very far down the line... your first statement is logically flawed since "piracy" would abound if artists were NOT directly paid for their work, duh.
RIAA member organisations will adjust their recording and marketing fees (which are normally passed on to artists themselves but which are often not made clear at the sign-this-rekkid-deal stage) upwardly to make more money at what they currently do (ie; "rip. mix and burn" both artists and their music). Artists may have to license their music more cheaply at first, but eventually the artists will get revenue streams out of this development instead of revenue chunks out of recording contracts.
So, down the line, the artists will be able to afford their own lawyers to take on those who have taken the original artist's music without a valid license, re-worked it and are now licensing the derivative work to others for $ - just like RIAA member organisations can and will continue to do.
Uh... in all likelihood the CEO or some other high-ranker is a Xian. Or they have a big client that happens to be an Xian organisation... either way, using the blanket term 'satan' gives them a pretty wide definition to play with when they want to chuck anyone sympathetic to 'the adversary' off the service, whomever that may be.
In my humble opinion, MS Outlook (odds on this error message is in every version, whether positioned as entirely rebuilt for Macintosh or no) has had the 'Most Exasperating' error message title ever since they wrote in "You've exceeded the maximum amount of text", which pops up in response to large incoming messages, small incoming messages, large outgoing messages and anything else that gets trapped by the big stupid error trap first. And it is always "You" (or rather "ME"), that has exceeded the maximum amount of text - never the sender. Oh, and it is always "text" even when the offending big "text" is a file.
(Yes, I do realise what happens to binary files when sent via email, and routinely calculate 7-bit file bloat... but the lack of a robust, easy-to-use and installed-by-default genuine file transfer protocol fools many, many, many corporate emailers).
I'm sure that this pre-dates The Simpsons, or even comic books. In fact, the phenomenon of pronouncing things sucky is very widespread... right down to the point of pronouncing sucky pronouncements sucky (or "frickin' annoying" if you need me to spell it out for you).
Psst! Learn how to use apostrophes and plurals... they're different, you know.
However it might be wise to take into account the actual amount of work done on a piece of 'art'... Consider a DaVinci original cartoon (not funnybook cartoon) - worth a fairly large amount. A fully painted DaVinci original would obviously be worth much more, whilst an original DaVinci concept that was painted up by the apprentices in the studio would not fetch quite as much as one painted by the master himself.
As demonstrated, the value attached to the creative portion of the work has traditionally been greater than that added by the rendering of all those brushstrokes. Instructing a computer to render a 3d scene (or paginate text, or whatever) would be similarly add less intrinsic value than colouring every pixel or postscript or what-have-you by hand, regardless of the amount of creative input. True snobs may care to invoke the "no take-backs" rule, which the artist may avoid by discarding every document with a mistake or revision and starting again from scratch.
Of course, this argument doesn't hold much weight in the modern world (given the advent of moving pictures in particular – who has the time or manpower to hand-render 24+ frames per second?), but the Art world has shown little interest in the present and the future, choosing instead to refine the definition of Art into a nebulous heurism that achieves definition more by exception than inclusion.
In my local arcades, the only thing that the machines have in common is not coin-sucking, it's equpment... OK you can play many arcade games on other platforms now (say Silent Scope on PS2) but do you have the big rifle with the vid-screen sight? Or the sit-down cabinet with twin joysticks (Virtua On), or the steering wheel etc.? Even the Tekken/SF2 clones have at least a decent joystick (can't find a ball-top joystick for PC whatsoever in this town) and a set of buttons that defy bashing and mashing.
OK, OK, they suck coins down too. We're getting 3 games for NZ$2 mostly...
Slashdot Mirror
And if he was actually from China, not the USA? What would he be called then, as a Chinese man?
You're not even IN the civilised universe.
Mitnick is going to have a hard time building a consultancy business nowadays... after all those years of "Free Kevin" who will want "Pay Kevin" now?
They might *mean* that, but it's not what they wrote in their press release - specifically "an entire CD" , not an album. It doesn't say whether it comprells the data on the host computer or on the unit - but the stuff about a "mirror library" kinda implies that comprellion is done on the host (lazy 'feature' where temp files are kept instead of being deleted after transfer?).
Arg I know you mean mebibytes not Will'n'Tommy, but I just have to say that Patrice Rushen's "Forget-me-nots" is a far superior original than Will Smith's appalling rip-off them to MiB. There. I feel better.
I'm sure they aren't lying to us when they say it will transfer a whole audio CD to the player via USB 2.0 in about 5 seconds. Check it out, the "Typical USB 2.0 transfer rate" is 8MB/sec according to the press release, so that figure must be fast enough to transfer a whole CD in 5 seconds, converting on the fly. One of those tiny CDs, yeah.
Doing the math, simplistically: 5 seconds * 8MB = 40MB. Typical audio CD with a maximum capacity of 650MB / 8MB = 81.25 seconds.
Do you see any disparity in those figures?
Hmm... the fact that they read the FAQ section about releasing the software under the GPL belies any notion of this being a 'boiler plate' letter... it might be based on one, but it has been customised to suit the circumstances (just not enough to be realistic).
That's not the only the Macrovision does...
Macrovision (the corporation) got code inserted in TV-Out chipsets to prevent protected titles from being played on TV-Out video cards. Two methods are reported: blocking and regular Macrovision distortion.
My play DVDs through my DVD-ROM drive and my video card is afflicted with blocking. For playback. PLAYBACK.
The official line is that it is there to prevent you from recording a DVD to VHS or whatever from your computer and so the distortion method will prevent that, but blocking method prevents the exact thing I bought a TV-Out capable card for.
There is software available to turn Macrovision off, usually as an extra for some other useful function like TV-Out management. But they don't necessarily work with dual-display drivers and may not be free. Some trial versions have minute limits instead of days or a limited number or executions and can be just as annoying in that respect as Macrovision.
If you don't care about the 7361T methods you'll both DeCSS and de-Macrovision these DVDs when you rip to HDD. They play back just as well if not better - rental DVDs can be pretty scratchy and a short wait before viewing a DVD is better than stutters/halts/systemcrash. Some physical protection systems (stick-on 'disc protector' and anti-theft devices) will seriously mung your box on even brand-new rental DVDs.
But I digress. Macrovision clearly does other things than videotaping from a DVD player.
And I for one would like to see a Macrovision logo on ALL Macrovision 'protected' DVDs as a 'caveat emptor'... I can't see the total cost of pressing, printing and distributing labelled Macrovision and unlabelled non-Macrovision lines of any title being less than the added cents-per-disc cost of Macrovision, ergo most discs made will look Macrovision-free whether they are or not, which leaves the consumer unaware.
Troll or not, your response doesn't look very far down the line... your first statement is logically flawed since "piracy" would abound if artists were NOT directly paid for their work, duh.
RIAA member organisations will adjust their recording and marketing fees (which are normally passed on to artists themselves but which are often not made clear at the sign-this-rekkid-deal stage) upwardly to make more money at what they currently do (ie; "rip. mix and burn" both artists and their music). Artists may have to license their music more cheaply at first, but eventually the artists will get revenue streams out of this development instead of revenue chunks out of recording contracts.
So, down the line, the artists will be able to afford their own lawyers to take on those who have taken the original artist's music without a valid license, re-worked it and are now licensing the derivative work to others for $ - just like RIAA member organisations can and will continue to do.
Uh... in all likelihood the CEO or some other high-ranker is a Xian. Or they have a big client that happens to be an Xian organisation... either way, using the blanket term 'satan' gives them a pretty wide definition to play with when they want to chuck anyone sympathetic to 'the adversary' off the service, whomever that may be.
In my humble opinion, MS Outlook (odds on this error message is in every version, whether positioned as entirely rebuilt for Macintosh or no) has had the 'Most Exasperating' error message title ever since they wrote in "You've exceeded the maximum amount of text", which pops up in response to large incoming messages, small incoming messages, large outgoing messages and anything else that gets trapped by the big stupid error trap first. And it is always "You" (or rather "ME"), that has exceeded the maximum amount of text - never the sender. Oh, and it is always "text" even when the offending big "text" is a file.
(Yes, I do realise what happens to binary files when sent via email, and routinely calculate 7-bit file bloat... but the lack of a robust, easy-to-use and installed-by-default genuine file transfer protocol fools many, many, many corporate emailers).
I'm sure that this pre-dates The Simpsons, or even comic books. In fact, the phenomenon of pronouncing things sucky is very widespread... right down to the point of pronouncing sucky pronouncements sucky (or "frickin' annoying" if you need me to spell it out for you).
Psst! Learn how to use apostrophes and plurals... they're different, you know.
Phew. Lots of viewpoints.
However it might be wise to take into account the actual amount of work done on a piece of 'art'... Consider a DaVinci original cartoon (not funnybook cartoon) - worth a fairly large amount. A fully painted DaVinci original would obviously be worth much more, whilst an original DaVinci concept that was painted up by the apprentices in the studio would not fetch quite as much as one painted by the master himself.
As demonstrated, the value attached to the creative portion of the work has traditionally been greater than that added by the rendering of all those brushstrokes. Instructing a computer to render a 3d scene (or paginate text, or whatever) would be similarly add less intrinsic value than colouring every pixel or postscript or what-have-you by hand, regardless of the amount of creative input. True snobs may care to invoke the "no take-backs" rule, which the artist may avoid by discarding every document with a mistake or revision and starting again from scratch.
Of course, this argument doesn't hold much weight in the modern world (given the advent of moving pictures in particular – who has the time or manpower to hand-render 24+ frames per second?), but the Art world has shown little interest in the present and the future, choosing instead to refine the definition of Art into a nebulous heurism that achieves definition more by exception than inclusion.
In my local arcades, the only thing that the machines have in common is not coin-sucking, it's equpment... OK you can play many arcade games on other platforms now (say Silent Scope on PS2) but do you have the big rifle with the vid-screen sight? Or the sit-down cabinet with twin joysticks (Virtua On), or the steering wheel etc.? Even the Tekken/SF2 clones have at least a decent joystick (can't find a ball-top joystick for PC whatsoever in this town) and a set of buttons that defy bashing and mashing. OK, OK, they suck coins down too. We're getting 3 games for NZ$2 mostly...